"Is Antonin Scalia the Vilest Person in Washington?"

[applegrove]

Is Antonin Scalia the Vilest Person in Washington?

By Steven Rosenfeld at AlterNet

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/antonin-scalia-vilest-person-washington?akid=10137.66032.gNJmfM&rd=1&src=newsletter804214&t=3

"SNIP.....................................................


A day after Justice Antonin Scalia caused gasps in the Supreme Court gallery by saying the 1965 Voting Rights Act had become a “racial entitlement” no congressperson could vote against, Rachel Maddow toldThe Daily Show she was in the courtroom and Scalia clearly enjoyed tormenting people. “I think he does know how that sounds,” she said. “He’s a troll. He’s saying this for effect. He knows it’s offensive.”

There’s no shortage of badly behaving Republicans in Washington. There’s the take-or-leave-it congressional leadership, who constantly show they value rightwing ideology more than its impact on people. There are intransigent obstructionists, like the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, who believes the answer to gun violence is more guns. But Scalia isn’t simply another Republican bully; he may be the most venal and fascist Republican of all.

It’s one thing to be a political bully and enjoy it, as Scalia does. But it’s another to say that the other branches of government are broken because they’re not doing things he agrees with; and then abuse the power of his office to overthrow that governance and perpetuate his legacy. That’s close to how European despots acted before World War II.

Let’s unpack what Scalia said about the 1965 Voting Rights Act with an eye to seeing his method, not just his madness. It is the same backstory to his mocking outbursts over the years, whether telling law school students asking about Bush v. Gore to “get over it,” or arrogantly answering questions put by other justices to lawyers—such as 2008's Heller case where he coached libertarian lawyers and then wrote the opinion that for the first time in U.S. history said the Second Amendment included a personal right to a handgun at home.

.....................................................SNIP"

[russspeakeasy]

1. It's a 57 way tie.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

2. He certainly tries to be! n/t

[BainsBane]

3. I'd put Wayne LaPierre first

whether he lives in DC or not. Scalia is up there, but he's got contenders.

[tularetom]

4. I dunno, does Cheney still live there?

[graham4anything]

5. Rand Paul would be. At this point David Duke is not there, but his clone Rand is.

Rand is one who will decide the next justices.
3rd party and libertarians would gladly insure Hillary is not the one who picks the ones after 2017.
At which point the justices would be even worse than Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts.

[Initech]

18. Yeah exactly, it's hard to pick between Rand Paul and Scalia.

But the fact that Paul wants to be president scares the living shit out of me. If he even has the slightest chance of winning in 2016, I will leave the country. Fuck him.

[UtahLib]

6. He certainly is a contender. n/t

[Journeyman]

7. He is -- du jour . . .

[yourout]

8. Certainly top 5.

[arely staircase]

9. probably not

sadly, probably not. The vilest person in washington is quite a title. i almost can't wrap my head around that idea.

[olddots]

10. He lacks the sneer

Cheney has that sneer that could scare Dracula .Don't get me started on these lizards because I'll start missing Agnew and Ed Meese .

[KauaiK]

11. The most vile? YES!!!

I continue to be aghast at what Scalia says out loud. He needs to be impeached!

[harkonen]

12. scalia is auditioning for a part in "They STILL Live!"

[Unknown Beatle]

13. Well,

Holder certainly qualifies. He let war criminals and wall st bankers off scott free. Plus, he's busting legal marijuana dispensary owners. ASSHOLE!

[apocalypsehow]

14. Ahhhhh, but see, he's a real hero to our "pro gun progressives"* thanks to the "Heller"

and "McDonald" decisions, both erroneously decided. Scalia's race-baiting - and this isn't the first time he's done it from the bench - simply matters not a whit to our "RKBA enthusiasts"**.

Not. One. Whit.

No, what matters is that his decision upended more than 200 years of constitutional law to give right-wingers and racists the individual "right" to fondle their Phallic Replacement Devices with the 5-4 force of a Republican-appointed majority Supreme Court behind them. Funny how a band of supposed "pro gun progressives"*** consistently find themselves cheering on the rankest sort of GOP Reactionaries and right-wing judicial hacks like Scalia, ain't it?

*( )

**( See sig line. )

***( )

[FreeBC]

15. Is Scalia doesn't believe in judicial precedent...

Does that mean in the future all of his opinions can be ignored?

[OldDem2012]

16. Why am I thinking this might morph into a reality show? nt.

[Blue Owl]

17. An empty robe, devoid of ethics and wisdom

n/t

[smirkymonkey]

19. It's so hard to choose.

There are so many who qualify.

[calimary]

20. Dang - so doggone many in Washington that it's hard to pick just one.

But he's certainly in the top ten. Maybe top five. Just too many to choose from. Where do I start? And is it just people in Washington NOW, or are we also including "Hall of Fame" stuff?

[ajain31]

21. US Supreme Court Justice Scalia's attack on Voting Rights ACT of 1965

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights.

We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act (VRA), it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last year's voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again.

If properly educated and aroused to stand up against Supreme Court activism from the bench the entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's Justice Scalia's attack on VRA as " racial entitlements" will not stand the test of time. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Voting Rights ACT it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, its Justices, can be challenged in public. Supreme Court Justices, get up and do your job or we will make it happen! Count on it!

Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights act on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women (Billionaires) in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they want in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls as proven in the 2012 election. They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially.

Commentator George Will knows that VRA is "relatively" not very old and should be ashamed of his views on VRA. He says VRA is 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to match payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled by the right wing opposition and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!

The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we've seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.

It is urgent that whoever can go to the Supreme Court and organize peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience protests in front of the Supreme Court ASAP to do so right away before Supreme Court Justices like Antonin Scalia will vote against the Voting Rights ACT of 1965!

All the republicans crapping about The Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the likes of the REPUBLICAN House should move aside in 2014 because the REPUBLICANS are the crux of the problem. President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 11th 2013. Vote Democratic always!